Just getting caught up on my latest obsession here, and haven't read all of the latest entries...
This statement speaks to a much broader point IMO. Several of you have stated that the fact that Brad told some lies/had some inconsistencies in his depo as proof of guilt, basically the "innocent don't have to lie" rationale. 2 points... 1) It is an enormous myth that innocent people don't lie in these situations. When an innocent person has the choice between telling the truth when it may be more damaging and arouse suspicion, or telling a lie that may diffuse suspicion, statistically they almost always choose the former. As one blogger who thinks BC is guilty correctly noted, many of the lies/inconsistencies told by BC in his depo were entirely inconsequential, with no bearing at all on BC's guilt or innocence. Bottom line, this doesn't really prove much. 2) A lot of people associated with this case have told lies or made inconsistent statements including, as ncsu95 correctly pointed out, NC's BFF JA. This list also includes NC herself, and most notably the CPD. I prefer the term "inconsistencies" to "lies" because as a 48 yo guy who can't remember what he had for breakfast, I don't always belive it's intentional. But I think it's fair to say that the CPD is at least guilty of telling lies of omission. Before anyone is tempted to send me a righteous reply to this last statement, please consider Googling Alan Gell, Mike Nifong, or NC SBI Crime Lab before doing so. Law enforcement does have a history of embellishing their version of the facts, especially in high-profile cases where there is a risk of being emabarrassed.
On another less related note, I live near the site where the body was found, so in keeping with my new obsession, my neighbor and I decided to drive by the site, ironically while on the way to the same HT that BC patonized. I wanted to compare the site to the current Google Maps image. The long and short of it is that the site looks compeltely different from what Google Maps shows. There are multiple houses where Google Maps shows trees. My guess is that the image is at least 2 years old. IMO the defense really blundered by not making this more abudantly clear to the jury. It could have really diffused the Google evidence.
Many of us have been critical of the prosecution. In the interest of fairness, I'd be interested in hearing otehr opinions as to where the defense fell short. In addition to the Google issue, I think they messed up by not presenting a plausible alternative to BC committing this crime. The one presented by jrb0124 back on 4/17, where it was posited that NC was meeting someone on Fielding Drive, possibly for a tryst, or something less sordid like a painting job, was interesting. It lacked real proof as most alternative theories do, but actually makes a lot of sense. If BC was monitoring her emails, etc..., it might arouse his suspicion, and would also explain why he did a Google Map search of the area the day beforehand.
